Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998) • Hacker News Board

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#31

Post by mPReDiToR » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:41 AM UTC

Gibbon1 wrote: post #26

oztamir wrote: post #4

Sounds like that Simpsons episode ( https://simpsons.fandom.com/wiki/The_Bob_Next_Door ): Bob arrives at The Five Corners and has himself and Bart (with his hands and feet bound with duct tape) stand in two of the states at the meeting point. He then tells Bart of his plan to murder him: Bob will stand in one state; reach into a second state and shoot his gun; have the bullet travel through a third state; hit Bart in…

I think there was a man in England insert long ago who killed someone and fled. 40 years later he was found and put on trial. In his defense he argued that he wasn't the same man of 40 years ago. And could point to many many differences to prove his point. The court was quite impressed and had him hung anyways.

Hanged.

Just a small nitpick probably unworthy of HN, but it might lead someone to see why I posted, and the difference.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#32

Post by hsbauauvhabzb » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:45 AM UTC

OscarCunningham wrote: post #14

camel-cdr wrote: post #6

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribery.

The illegal thing about bribery is that you give money to an individual for them to do something on behalf of an organisation. Paying someone to do something isn't illegal, but you're harming the organisation by encouraging the individual to act differently than in the best interests of the organisation.

Is bribery legal when the two parties are entirely private entities (not law enforcement, not publicly listed, etc)? Is it still illegal if you own the entity?

Presumably it would often be tax fraud, but an intangible assets maybe not so much?

Aren’t intangible assets and ‘horse trading’ the fundamental underpinnings of politics?

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#33

Post by landoftheice » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:45 AM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

[dead]

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#34

Post by jongjong » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:47 AM UTC

camel-cdr wrote: post #6

Doesn't the same thing apply to bribery? I can gift you something, and I can ask you to do something. But if I do the first conditioned on the second it's bribery.

Good point.

It both cases the existence of a crime depends on how closely the two actions are related. If you literally gift something to someone with zero expectation of getting anything in return and later that other person happens to do something which benefits you. It's impossible to prove that is bribery. There has to be a strong connection the money and the action.

There is a similar principle with blackmail. There has to be a strong connection between the money and the inaction.

It's interesting to note that in both cases, a transfer of money usually causes harm to external third parties who are not aware of the transaction. It would be better for society if people did not accept bribes and if people did not yield to blackmail (e.g. if they just went to jail instead of continuing whatever they were doing which made them the target of blackmail in the first place).

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#35

Post by Closi » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:47 AM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

There is also an assumption in the paper that the information would be released without the blackmail, and that blackmail is just a commercial-option to 'stop' the information release for the benefit of both parties.

This is wrong for at least two reasons:

1. The information may not have been released because the secret-holder did not have an incentive to release it, however in a 'blackmail-legal' world there is now a new incentive to threaten to release the information.

2. If blackmail is illegal, it also incentivises others to go and find secrets that they can then exploit for money/sex/other.

Paper even resorts to effectively calling Sam a facist at one point because he is against the free market(!). I think the below excerpt of the paper sums up the papers (radical) free-market views:

> Altman asserts that "charging poison victims who face imminent death more for medication than one would charge less desperate purchasers of the same drug exploits their hardships." [however] he doesn't seem to realize that those societies which allow free enterprise [...] are far more likely to have medicines that will save lives than ones which embrace socialism, regulationism, interventionism and [which represent] the fascist model favored by Altman.

I didn't know the idea that you shouldn't charge someone who is poisoned more for antidote was considered fascist or even particularly socialist!

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#36

Post by techdragon » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:48 AM UTC

Having read through it I was disappointed in their decision to barely to engage with the potential solution to the paradox that would result from the development of a legal construct of “criminal coercion”, they touch on coercion a few times but don’t dig in as they’re not focused on suggesting such a thing (it’s certainly not their job to as the authors they are free to decide the remit of their paper after all)

… but I feel the concept of “criminal coercion” is a powerful potential fix to a lot of modern problems. If one party has sufficient power via any means that they can coerce and control their other party, at some point (the hard part is deciding where this point is) the coercive nature switches from being “normal life in a capitalist society under the rule of law” (a phrase I’m using to try and cover all the forms of coercion that we kind of have to live with, eg cops and the law) to being “criminal coercion”.

There’s obviously a massive argument as to what the cut off should be, but the concept is simple and feels morally justified which is a good start.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#37

Post by clnq » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:50 AM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

Using 36” gas chainsaw is legal, and performing surgery is legal. Yet I am prosecuted for gross malpractice — how can this be? /s

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#38

Post by techdragon » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:51 AM UTC

Having read through it I was disappointed in their decision to barely to engage with the potential solution to the paradox that would result from the development of a legal construct of “criminal coercion”, they touch on coercion a few times but don’t dig in as they’re not focused on suggesting such a thing (it’s certainly not their job to as the authors they are free to decide the remit of their paper after all)

… but I feel the concept of “criminal coercion” is a powerful potential fix to a lot of modern problems. If one party has sufficient power via any means that they can coerce and control their other party, at some point (the hard part is deciding where this point is) the coercive nature switches from being “normal life in a capitalist society under the rule of law” (a phrase I’m using to try and cover all the forms of coercion that we kind of have to live with, eg cops and the law) to being “criminal coercion”.

There’s obviously a massive argument as to what the cut off should be, but the concept is simple and feels morally justified which is a good start. It’s not perfect but it’s a good start at least, unlike the “let’s just make blackmail legal because… etc..” attitude that keeps coming up in the paper.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#39

Post by clnq » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:54 AM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

Blackmail is one of the classic examples used to illustrate the composition fallacy. Bribery, insider trading, cartel price fixing, and many other fraud schemes are others.

Re: Blackmail as a Victimless Crime: Reply to Altman (1998)

#40

Post by cedilla » Mon, May 08, 2023, 10:55 AM UTC

seanhunter wrote: post #9

What a pathetic straw man of a paper. It’s transparently obvious that blackmail is not a victimless crime given it’s not hard to identify who the victim is in a case of blackmail. Secondly their argument (blackmail comprises two parts each of which is legal on its own and therefore should be legal when done together) is both untrue on its face and fails given there are lots of things which are legal in isolation that…

More than that: not only is it possible to find examples of two "legal rights" making a "wrong", it's impossible to find an atomic legal wrong. Everything can be broken down so far that you are left with actions that are legal when you ignore the context.